Upload
jlventigan
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/13/2019 Toward Relational Empowerment
1/15
O R I G I N A L P A P E R
Toward Relational Empowerment
Brian D. Christens
Society for Community Research and Action 2011
Abstract Psychological empowerment has been theo-
rized as a construct with emotional, behavioral and cog-nitive components. Yet, many studies have stressed that
empowerment processes are contingent on interpersonal
relationships. Moreover, theory suggests that power is
developed and exercised through relationships. This article
makes the case that expanding our conceptions of psy-
chological empowerment through the addition of a rela-
tional component can enhance our understanding of
psychological empowerment and the effectiveness of
empowerment-oriented community practice. Previous
research on empowerment is reviewed for relational con-
tent, and additional insights into the relational context of
empowerment processes are marshaled from other concepts
in community research including social capital, sense of
community, social networks, social support, and citizen
participation. A new iteration of the nomological network
for psychological empowerment is presented, including the
elements of a relational component.
Keywords Collaboration Empowerment Power
Relationships Social networks
Psychological empowerment has been a core concept for
community psychology theory, practice and values for the
last 30 years (Rappaport 1981,1987). It can be defined as
the psychological aspects of processes by which people
gain greater control over their lives, participate in demo-
cratic decision-making, and develop critical awareness of
their sociopolitical environments (Zimmerman 2000).
Zimmerman (1995) proposed a nomological network forpsychological empowerment with three components: (1)
an emotional (intrapersonal) component referring to self-
perceptions of ones competence in exerting influence in
the sociopolitical domain, (2) a cognitive (interactional)
component referring to the skills and critical understand-
ings necessary for exerting sociopolitical influence, and
(3) a behavioral component referring directly to the
actions taken to exert influence. While no study has yet
validated this three-factor structure for psychological
empowerment, many studies have examined one or more
of the components, resulting in several well-validated
measures and a growing body of research revealing rela-
tionships between components of psychological empow-
erment (Christens et al. 2011a; Itzhaky and York 2000;
Peterson and Reid 2003), and between psychological
empowerment and other conceptually relevant variables
(Hughey et al. 2008; Speer et al. 2001; Wilke and Speer
2011).
Most studies of psychological empowerment have
focused on the emotional (intrapersonal) component, which
has often been assessed using versions of a sociopolitical
control scale designed to measure perceived control of
ones sociopolitical environment (Peterson et al. 2006;
Zimmerman and Zahniser1991). The sociopolitical control
scale consists of items that assess: (1) leadership compe-
tence (e.g., Other people usually follow my ideas; I am
often a leader in groups), and (2) policy control (e.g., It
is important to me that I actively participate in local
issues; There are plenty of ways for people like me to
have a say in what our government does). Versions of the
sociopolitical control scale have been validated across
multiple contexts. For example, recent studies have vali-
dated measures of the intrapersonal component for youth in
B. D. Christens (&)
School of Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
1300 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
1 3
Am J Community Psychol
DOI 10.1007/s10464-011-9483-5
8/13/2019 Toward Relational Empowerment
2/15
an urban U.S. context (Peterson et al. 2011) and for adults
in an urban Chinese context (Wang et al. 2011).
Less empirical work to date has addressed the cognitive
(interactional) component of psychological empowerment.
Study of the interactional component of psychological
empowerment has focused on critical understandings of
societal injustices and power dynamics (Gutierrez 1995;
Speer 2000; Speer and Peterson 2000). These understandingshave been assessed using a cognitive empowerment scale
(Peterson et al. 2002; Speer et al. 2001) with three sub-
scales addressing (1) the sources (e.g., The only way I can
have power is by connecting with others), (2) the nature
(e.g., Changing a community almost always results in
conflict), and (3) the instruments of social power (e.g.,
Those with power shape the way people think about
community problems).
The behavioral component of psychological empower-
ment has been theorized as participation in the life of a
community, particularly in democratic decision-making
processes. It has been measured using scales designed toassess community participation (e.g., Speer and Peterson
2000; Zimmerman and Zahniser1991). Many studies have
identified positive associations between community partic-
ipation and the intrapersonal component of psychological
empowerment (e.g., Israel et al. 1994; Peterson and Reid
2003; Zimmerman et al.1992). Recent findings from lon-
gitudinal research indicate that intrapersonal empowerment
processes tend to unfold as individuals are socialized
through their participation in empowering community set-
tings (Christens et al. 2011a). Yet, the interactional com-
ponent of psychological empowerment has more complex
relationships with community participation that are mod-
erated by socioeconomic status (Christens et al. 2011b).
Notably, many studies have treated community participa-
tion as a theoretically related, but distinct variable.1
Conceptual work and empirical research concur that
psychological empowerment is a multi-component con-
struct that likely varies across populations and contexts.
The relationships between the heretofore-theorized com-
ponents of psychological empowerment have been shown
to vary according to gender (Itzhaky and York2000) and
race (Peterson et al. 2002). Psychological empowerment
processes are also mediated by setting-level characteristics
(Maton and Salem 1995; Wilke and Speer 2011). These
complicated findings underscore early observations that
empowerment processes tend to unfold differently in
different contexts, sometimes in ways that are asynchro-
nous, paradoxical (Rappaport 1981) and enigmatic
(Zimmerman 1990). Moreover, empowerment theory has
emphasized the notion that psychological empowerment
processes are not confined to individuals in an atomistic
sense (Zimmerman 1990). In contrast, empowerment has
been conceptualized holistically as a context-specific
transactional process (Altman and Rogoff 1987) takingplace as individuals participate and interact within various
organizational and community contexts.
Importantly, then, psychological empowerment is not
the same as individual-level empowerment. Rather, as
Zimmerman (1990) makes clear, psychological empower-
ment is a psychologically oriented variable that has reci-
procal relationships with processes and outcomes at other
levels of analysis. In other words, the theoretical founda-
tions of psychological empowerment have been established
in ways that suffer less from the inherent individualism that
characterizes much of contemporary psychological theory
(Gergen 2009). For instance, studies of psychologicalempowerment have typically been situated in what Maton
(2008) describes as empowering community settings
mutual help groups, youth development organizations,
educational settings, religious settings, civic engagement
organizations, and social action and social movement
organizations. Empowerment research has therefore been
particularly ecologically sensitive, with interrelated bodies
of work at the psychological, organizational and commu-
nity levels (Schulz et al. 1995), and continual appreciation
for context-specificity (Zimmerman1995).
Despite the ways in which psychological empowerment
theory has been sensitive to context at multiple ecological
levels, it has been argued that empowerment theory has
ascribed primacy to individualism, independence, and
control, while neglecting more communal processes and
outcomes that are also important to power and perceptions
of power (Riger1993). In addition, it has been argued that
psychological empowerment has been overly focused on
peoples feelings of control over their lives, while
neglecting the actualization of such control (Perkins2010).
This article proposes an expansion of the psychological
empowerment construct through the addition of a relational
component. It is suggested herein that expanding the the-
oretical and measurement vantages toward the relational
dynamics of empowerment and the exercise of power can
further the study of psychological empowerment and
empowerment-oriented interventions.
Relationships, Power and Psychology
Power is a frequently used word with many meanings. The
question arises, which specific forms and uses of power
1 Whether community participation can be better understood as a
component of psychological empowerment, or a theoretically related
but distinct variable, is a question that remains for future theoretical
and empirical work. For instance, there are likely empowering
behavioral processes and empowered outcomes that are expressed
through more specific actions than aggregate community
participation.
Am J Community Psychol
1 3
8/13/2019 Toward Relational Empowerment
3/15
does empowerment seek to cultivate? Empowerment the-
ory and empowerment-oriented practice have been oriented
toward the forms and uses of power that enable access to
resources for marginalized groups and the promotion of
social change and community well being (Prilleltensky
2008). The conceptual history of empowerment helps to
explain this orientation. Empowerment initially emerged as
a critical departure from earlier approaches to preventionand intervention that stressed professional-client models of
human service. In this context, empowerment has repre-
sented a move toward collaborative approaches to working
with individuals, organizations and communities to achieve
greater social justice and community wellness (Rappaport
1981). Therefore, although power can be understood as
suffusing all interpersonal interactions and discourses
(Foucault 1982), an empowerment orientation should be
most concerned with the dynamics of power within inter-
personal relations that enable and catalyze effective social
action toward liberation and justice.
These forms and uses of power can be characterized astransformative power, which is exercised collectively,
through organization (Speer 2008). This conception of
transformative power is most similar to power to in
Rigers (1993; p. 182) formulationthe opportunity to act
more freelyyet, it is specifically related to collective
(rather than individual) action intended to alter structural
conditions and dynamics in social, political and community
contexts. Thus, it is both an end in itself, and a mechanism
for increasing well-being at the individual and collective
levels (Prilleltensky 2008). Unsurprisingly, many have
noted that the successful development and exercise of
transformative power depends on relational network
dynamics (e.g., Alinsky1971; Dworski-Riggs and Langh-
out2010; Speer and Hughey 1995). This is not to suggest
that there are not also relational components of other forms
of power that are employed toward the maintenance of the
asymmetric distribution of resources and opportunities
(Lukes1974), which transformative power seeks to resist
and oppose. In fact, the relational components of such
forms and uses of power have received much more
scholarly attention across a variety of contexts. For
example, Watts et al. (2003) draw on Fanon (1963) in
pointing out that oppression shapes cultures that create
dialectically dependent beingsthe oppressed and the
oppressors.2 Domination, violence, and liberation are all
relational processes. The roles of relationships in power
asymmetries have been elucidated in studies on diverse
topics from race and critical pedagogy (Lucal 1996) to
international community development (Groves and Hinton
2004).
These examples of the role of relationships in oppressive
forms and uses of power further highlight the need for
more systematic attention to relational context in empow-
erment theory and the development and exercise of trans-
formative power. In fact, many studies of empowerment
and related processes in community research have beenattentive to the relational contexts of collective action,
liberation, and psychological empowerment processes. For
example, Mattis and Jagers (2001) outline a relational
framework for understanding the ways that religion oper-
ates through interpersonal relationships to stimulate a range
of affective, behavioral and cognitive outcomes, including
involvement in collective action for social justice in
African American communities. However, there has not
heretofore been a coherent incorporation of such insights
on relational context into the theory of psychological
empowerment. Because psychological constructs are often
theorized according to models of affect, behavior, andcognition, a call for a relational component is somewhat
atypical. Indeed, there are other ways to conceptually
incorporate relational dynamics into the existing compo-
nents of psychological empowermentfor instance,
through considering relational elements of skill develop-
ment, self-perceptions, and behaviorsyet, the perspective
that is offered here is that relationships can be considered
as a distinct component of psychological empowerment,
and that doing so has the potential to advance the study of
psychological empowerment.
Interestingly, empowerment theory has been more
attentive to relational context at the organizational and
community levels than it has at the level of psychology.
For example, Peterson and Zimmerman (2004) identify
social support and subgroup linkages as processes that may
influence the intraorganizational component of organiza-
tional empowerment. Likewise, they identify collaboration,
alliance building, and accessing the social networks of
other organizations as characterizing the interorganiza-
tional component of organizational empowerment. Simi-
larly, Laverack (2006) posits a number of relational
characteristics as domains of empowerment at the com-
munity level (e.g., strengthening connections to other
organizations and people, and building equitable relation-
ships with entities outside the community). Relative to
empowerment theory at other ecological levels, then, the-
ory on psychological empowerment has been less explicit
in its orientation toward relational context.
Perhaps it should not be surprising that psychological
empowerment theory has been less explicitly focused on
relationships than empowerment theory at other levels.
More broadly, the discipline of psychology has tended to
view groups and relationships with suspicion. For instance,
2 The distinction between oppressors and oppressed is not absolute as
it relates to individual persons. Participants in unjust systems often
play at least some element of both roles.
Am J Community Psychol
1 3
8/13/2019 Toward Relational Empowerment
4/15
groups have been studied more often as sources of dan-
gerous conformity than of solidarity or support (Gergen
2009). Relationships, however, are not just external com-
ponents of contexts that humans inhabit; they are consti-
tutive of the human experience, and the construction of
identity (Kegan 1982), the development of cognition,
emotion and language over the life-course (Fogel 1993;
Gergen 1994). While psychology can be generally char-acterized as having a strong individualist ethos (Miller
1984; Prilleltensky 1994), relational perspectives have
existed in the discipline for some time. Some high profile
examples include works by Piaget, Wittgenstein and Mead
(Carpendale and Racine 2011), yet even these are often
misunderstood due to persistent individualistic biases in the
discipline, and in Westernized capitalist culture, more
generally. Efforts to advance relational perspectives in
psychology are ongoing. In counseling psychology, for
instance, relational-cultural theories of human development
have built on feminist theory, as well as the experiences of
women and members of other marginalized groups, toassert the importance of relationships to well being
(Comstock et al. 2008). In relational-cultural theory,
participating and contributing to growth-fostering rela-
tionships has been identified as the goal of human
development.
Yet, participating in growth-fostering relationships does
not, by itself, lead to agency in the sociopolitical domain.
Along with advancing relational perspectives on psychol-
ogy, some feminist theorists (e.g., Kitzinger 1991) have
advocated for greater attention to power in psychology.
This articles argument for the importance of relationships
to the conceptualization of psychological empowerment
rests on a basic propositionthat the transformative power
that empowerment theory seeks to promote is developed
and exercised in and through relationships, as well as
emotional, cognitive and behavioral processes. A similar
proposition played a key role in the development theory
and measures for the cognitive component of psychological
empowerment. Recall that a subset of items in the cogni-
tive empowerment scale assesses understandings that
power is not something that an individual possesses, but
instead is something that can only be exercised through
relationships (Speer and Peterson 2000; Wilke and Speer
2011). Yet, having awareness of the relational source of
social power is not tantamount to participation in
empowering relationships and the associated psychological
processes and outcomes. The cognitive component of
psychological empowerment therefore stops short of cap-
turing the psychological elements of relational embedd-
edness of a person who is developing and exercising
transformative power.
Greater attention to the relationships in conceptualiza-
tions of psychological empowerment has potential to
answer Rigers (1993) challenge to empowerment theory to
focus not only on the traditionally masculine values of
mastery and independence, but also on the traditionally
feminine values of connection and community. It also
offers a possible avenue for incorporating insights from
other feminist scholars, who have suggested that power is
not fundamentally situated within individuals; but is rather
something that emerges in the transactional spaces betweenthem (VanderPlaat 1999). A turn toward the relational
dynamics of psychological empowerment also provides a
potential bridge between the feelings and beliefs that
measures of psychological empowerment have tended to
capture, and the macro-level processes of community
change that involve the exercise of power. Indeed, as
Granovetter (1973) suggests,
The analysis of processes in interpersonal networks
provides the most fruitful micro-macro bridge. In one
way or another, it is through these networks that
small-scale interaction becomes translated into large-scale patterns, and that these, in turn, feed back into
small groups (p. 1360).
Thus, a relational component of psychological empow-
erment has the potential to enhance the connections
between empowerment at different ecological levels of
analysis, thereby diminishing the grounds for a critique of
psychological empowerment as simply a sense or a feeling
that is disconnected from the actual formation and exercise
of power.
Theorizing a Relational Component of Psychological
Empowerment
This article is the first to suggest augmenting the nomo-
logical network for psychological empowerment with a
relational component. Yet, interpersonal relationships have
received attention in many previous studies of psycholog-
ical empowerment. In quantitative work that has taken
relational context into account, relational characteristics
and aspects of relationships have sometimes been treated as
endogenous components of empowerment processes (e.g.,
Maton and Rappaport 1984), and have sometimes been
situated as exogenous to psychological empowerment (e.g.,
Speer and Hughey1996) under the rubrics of a number of
other constructs with relational dimensions that have been
used in community research, including social capital, social
support, neighboring, citizen participation and psycholog-
ical sense of community. On the other hand, in qualitative
and conceptual studies, relational dynamics have more
often been situated as a parts of empowerment processes
(e.g., Kieffer 1984; Kirshner 2008; Russell et al. 2009).
This articles aim is to advance the psychological
Am J Community Psychol
1 3
8/13/2019 Toward Relational Empowerment
5/15
empowerment construct through the conceptual specifica-
tion of a relational component. Hence, with an eye toward
understanding the elements of a relational component of
psychological empowerment, this section first examines the
extant research on psychological empowerment as it has
dealt with relational context, then draws more broadly on
studies of other relevant constructs and frameworks with
relational dimensions.
Relationships in Studies of Psychological
Empowerment
Although interpersonal relationships have not figured
prominently in psychological empowerment theory, it is
nevertheless clear from previous research that relationships
play critical roles in empowering processes. This has been
most evident in descriptive and conceptual studies. For
instance, Kieffer (1984) identified collaborations as part of
developmental processes of empowerment, focusing in
particular on the facilitating roles played by mentors orexternal enablers of empowerment processes. Importantly,
relationships in Kieffers study not only provide social and
emotional support as participants struggle through their
empowering growth (p. 28), but also help to facilitate the
development of critical awareness and research skills, as
participants become more effective agents of civic action.
Similarly, Pigg (2002), writing about mutual empower-
ment (p. 116) in community development, emphasizes the
interpersonal capacities that community leaders must pos-
sess, including the ability to motivate and guide others in
processes of collaborative or shared leadership. Likewise, in
their study of empowerment among participants in a com-
munity protest of locally unwanted land uses in Northern
Italy, Fedi et al. (2009) describe empowered community
members radiating influence through their social networks,
transferring the skills and knowledge gained in their protest
activities into a range of other settings.
As described earlier, psychological empowerment is
inextricably linked with empowering contexts, which have
distinguishing characteristics that are important for con-
sidering a relational component of psychological empow-
erment. Indeed, unlike the forms of leadership that often
operate in formal organizations such as businesses or
government agencieswhich tend toward the expression
of hierarchy and privilege individual agency over collab-
oration (Carli and Eagly2001)leadership in empowering
community contexts has been described as distributed,
collaborative, and deeply interpersonal (Chetkovich and
Kunreuther 2006; Ospina and Foldy 2010). For example,
Speer and Hugheys (1995) study of empowerment in a
community organizing context emphasizes that social
power is intentionally built through interpersonal relation-
ships. A related study by Speer et al. (1995) showed that
psychological empowerment was higher among partici-
pants in a community organizing initiative that emphasized
relationships than in a similar initiative that placed a
greater relative emphasis on community issues. More
recently, Christens (2010) studied the process of relation-
ship development in community organizing, finding that
intentional one-to-one relationship development broadened
participants networks of relationships, developed newunderstandings of the social world, and strengthened their
commitments to civic involvement.
Descriptive studies of empowerment processes among
young people have produced theoretical frameworks for
youth empowerment in several contexts, and have also
emphasized the roles of relationships. For example, Kim
et al. (1998) detail a youth development and empowerment
approach to substance abuse prevention, stressing the role
of family and non-familial relationships, youthadult
relationships, and a task force that can tap organizational
networks for involving additional allies. Similarly, Cargo
et al. (2003) studied youth empowerment through a com-munity health promotion intervention. Their study found
that relationships were important for motivations to get
involved and stay involved, that relationships between
adults and youth impacted youth confidence, and that social
integration into the community through an expanded net-
work of relationships allowed youth to assume greater
responsibility for mentoring other youth. A growing body
of evidence suggests that importance of intergenerational
collaborations in youth development and empowerment
processes (Zeldin et al. 2005). For instance, Kirshner
(2008), in a study of multiracial youth activism organiza-
tions, emphasized the role of joint work and participation
guided by peers and adults to engage marginalized young
people in political action.
The empirical study that has provided the most unam-
biguous identification of a relational component of psy-
chological empowerment processes is a recent study of
young leaders in high school gay-straight alliances. Russell
et al. (2009) identified three dimensions through which
empowerment was experienced: empowerment through
having and using knowledge, personal empowerment
(much like the intrapersonal empowerment discussed by
others), and relational empowerment (much like interper-
sonal empowerment) (p. 896). In their study, interper-
sonal or relational empowerment included belonging to a
group and associated feelings such as confidence derived
from group membership and solidarity. It also included a
commitment to passing on the values associated with col-
lective activity to future members. Finally, empowered
youth expressed their desire to empower others in their
organization. As one participant in their study said, you
cant be empowered and stay empowered for very long if
youre not connected with other people (p. 899).
Am J Community Psychol
1 3
8/13/2019 Toward Relational Empowerment
6/15
Relational Context in Community Research
More broadly, relational connectedness has become a
central theme in community and applied social research
through multiple theoretical and analytic avenues. Specif-
ically, several constructs have emerged that have been
more attentive to the relational context of life in commu-
nities than have most studies of psychological empower-ment. Hence, despite the lack of an explicit focus in the
conceptualization of psychological empowerment, insights
can be obtained from other constructs that can be used to
inform an understanding of a relational component of
psychological empowerment. One example is the concept
of social capital, which has been advanced to the front of
the social-scientific lexicon by works by Coleman (1988)
and Putnam (1995). Social capital has a voluminous con-
ceptual history, such that any characterization of the term
applies only to subsets of the literature (see Farr 2004).
Contemporary usage, however, has tended to focus on the
relational contexts of trust, mutual obligation, informationsharing, and norms. Portes (1998) argues that the heuristic
power of the term comes from two sources:
First, the concept focuses attention on the positive
consequences of sociability while putting aside its
less attractive features. Second, it places those posi-
tive consequences in the framework of a broader
discussion of capital and calls attention to how such
nonmonetary forms can be important sources of
power and influence.
This second function of the concept of social capital is
particularly relevant to empowerment theory. In fact,
social capitals conceptual connection between relation-
ships and power may help to explain why the study of
social capital has eclipsed the study of empowerment in
most applied social sciences. However, the tendency of
much of the contemporary work on social capital to claim
or imply causal connections between access to resources
and sociability limits the usefulness of the term for
community researchers, who are typically clear on the
point that differential access to resources depends more
on structural inequalities than differences in sociability
at either the individual or community level (DeFilippis
2001). Moreover, in keeping with the terms economic
origins, many usages of social capital have tended to
emphasize the rational actor who seeks to build social
capital for instrumental purposes and individual-level
gains (Kadushin 2004), rather than the expressive or
collectivist functions that relationships can serve. Like-
wise, with some exceptions (e.g., Coleman 1988) social
capital theory tends to emphasize the benefits of pos-
session of relationships, but frequently neglects the self
and collective efficacy developed by those who become
empowered to act and exercise social power through their
relationships.
Nevertheless, research on social capital provides several
important insights that can help to inform a conception of
relational empowerment. The first is the distinction
between different forms of social capital, namely bridging
and bonding social capital (Saegert et al. 2001). Bridging
social capital refers to sociability in more heterogeneousgroups, while bonding social capital takes place in more
homogenous groups. While both forms generate norms of
reciprocity and trust, bridging is thought to generate more
positive externalities than bonding (Coffeand Geys2007)
and is frequently associated with interorganizational rela-
tionships. Thus, bridging social capital is particularly
relevant for consideration of the relational contexts of
empowerment. In some contexts, bonding social capital is
also relevant to relational agency in the sociopolitical
domain. Coleman (1988) stresses the role of network clo-
sure in establishing obligations and expectations, which are
key to the exercise of power, for example, in communityorganizing.
Another important insight can be drawn from
Ginwrights (2007) conception of critical social capital,
which involves the connections to small community-
based organizations in Black communities that foster
political consciousness and prepare Black youth to address
issues in their communities (p. 404). Unlike much of the
literature on social capital, which lacks attention to psy-
chology (see Perkins et al. 2002), Ginwrights work makes
connections between the development of leadership capa-
bilities and political consciousness and the relational con-
texts in which individuals are embedded. Critical social
capital is a concept that offers insight into the relational
context of critical consciousness, which, in the view of
Freire and others, is often cultivated through critical group
reflection, listening to narratives, and other forms of col-
laborative action (Watts et al. 2011).
Related in many ways to social capital theory, the study
of social networks has extended across the social sciences
as a way of conceptualizing and examining relational
structures (Borgatti et al.2009). Social networks have long
been a topic of interest to community and ecologically
oriented researchers (e.g., Sarason1976), but have gained
momentum as a topic of study as tools for visualization and
analysis have become more commonly available. Recent
contributions to social network theory, methods, and
applications have been made by researchers from an array
of disciplines, including sociology (e.g., Diani and
McAdam 2003), education (e.g., Miller 2011), and medi-
cine (Christakis and Fowler 2008). Recent applications of
social network analysis in community psychology have
included a study of the influence of individual and com-
munity-level networks on community attachment (Crowe
Am J Community Psychol
1 3
8/13/2019 Toward Relational Empowerment
7/15
2010), and a study of the influence of peer social network
structure on relational aggression (Neal 2009). Methodo-
logically, social network analysis is inherently relational,
differentiating it from other social scientific methods,
which focus on attributes (Luke 2005). Theoretically, a
social network perspective provides a set of concepts that
are focused on relational structure, which potentially
extend perspectives on social support or self-reportedsociability. A social network perspective, therefore, offers
windows into the complex arrangements of relational ties
that exist between people (Coleman 1988) within and
across various settings.
Empowering community and organizational processes
(e.g., citizen participation; community organizing; social
movements) create changes in social network structures
within and between organizational settings, with implica-
tions for the psychosocial dynamics of participants in those
networks. Importantly, both the quantity and quality of ties
are relevant for understanding social network dynamics.
For instance, Granovetter (1973) highlights the role thatweak ties play in facilitating processes from diffusion of
information to political mobilization. Moreover, social
network studies have avoided the more is better pitfall
that plagues some conceptions of social capital. It has done
so by attending to instances in which an absence of ties can
enhance the power of certain actors within a network.
Burts (2001) concept of structural holes demonstrates that
certain actors in some networks have greater power when
their own interpersonal ties span gaps, or holes between
clusters of densely connected individuals. Nevertheless,
strong ties are also important, particularly for building the
kinds of trust that can allow organizations to undertake
actions to change the status quo (Krackhardt 1992). Social
network theory and methods are therefore likely particu-
larly useful tools for understanding the relational dynamics
of psychological empowerment processes.
Several other lines of research in community psychol-
ogy have provided insights into relational context.
Research on citizen participation (Foster-Fishman et al.
2007; Perkins et al. 1990), neighboring and neighborhood
cohesion (Unger and Wandersman1985; Wilkinson2007),
and social support (Shinn et al. 1984) have examined
social, cognitive and affective impacts of interpersonal
relationships and relationships between individuals and
their environments. For instance, Unger and Wandersmans
(1985) conception of neighboring focuses on the social
interactions, affective bonds and cognitions that are inter-
related with neighborhood participation and the formation
of neighborhood organizations.
The most substantial of work in community psychology
has been the study of psychological sense of community,
which has focused on the subjective experiences and
feelings of belonging and identification with a territorial or
organizational community. Sense of community has been
identified as an overarching goal for community psychol-
ogy (Sarason1974). McMillan and Chavis (1986) provided
a definition of sense of community: a feeling that mem-
bers have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to
one another and to the group, and a shared faith that
members needs will be met through their commitment to
be together (p. 9). Moreover, they operationalized psy-chological sense of community, identifying four dimen-
sions: membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of
needs, and shared emotional connection. Thus, sense of
community goes beyond conceptions of social support to
include feelings of belonging to a larger social collective
and the confidence that this group will provide one with
social support. Like psychological empowerment, psycho-
logical sense of community has empirically demonstrated
linkages to community participation at multiple levels of
analysis (Perkins and Long 2002). Like social capital,
sense of community involves sociability and norms of
reciprocity. And, like psychological empowerment, senseof community has been studied as a context-specific con-
struct, with different manifestations when residential
blocks, neighborhoods, or organizations are used as the
referent (Hughey et al. 1999).
A relational component of psychological empowerment
diverges conceptually from sense of community principally
by virtue of empowerments explicit concern with trans-
formative power and change. Psychological sense of com-
munity, through its focus on needs fulfillment and
emotional connection, may be a precursor to the actions that
give rise to empowerment (Hughey et al. 2008), including
the relational component of psychological empowerment.
Where psychological sense of community stopsand
where a relational component of psychological empower-
ment beginsis identifying the extent to which different
sets of relationships (including those that cut across specific
territorial or organizational settings) are facilitating the
development and exercise of power at multiple levels.
There are, however, insights from studies of sense of
community that can inform the conceptual development of
a relational component of psychological empowerment. For
example, Sonn and Fisher (1998) use sense of community to
shed light on the ways that mediating structures in
oppressed communities interact with and resist domination.
In addition, there have been suggestions for further devel-
opments in theory on sense of community that might be
profitably situated within a relational component of psy-
chological empowerment. For example, Hughey and Speer
(2002) point out that a sharper focus on bridging gaps and
spanning extra-individual boundaries can enhance the sense
of community concept (p. 70). A relational component of
psychological empowerment might also provide conceptual
space for an expansion of this idea.
Am J Community Psychol
1 3
8/13/2019 Toward Relational Empowerment
8/15
Synthesis: Augmenting the Nomological Network
of Psychological Empowerment
The preceding sections review of existing community
research that has been attentive to relational content brings
the basic elements of a relational or interpersonal compo-
nent of psychological empowerment into focus. A rela-
tional component of psychological empowerment can beconsidered as the psychological aspects of interpersonal
transactions and processes that undergird the effective
exercise of transformative power in the sociopolitical
domain. The elements of a relational or interpersonal
component are presented in an iteration of the nomological
network for psychological empowerment in which a rela-
tional component has been added (see Fig.1) to the three
components theorized by Zimmerman (1995). The ele-
ments of the relational component have been articulated
based on previous work on psychological empowerment
(e.g., Kieffer1984; Russell et al.2009; Speer and Hughey
1995) and by work on relational context through otherconceptual avenues in community researchsocial capital,
social networks, neighboring and citizen participation, and
psychological sense of community.
Collaborative Competence
Collaborative competencethe set of abilities and pro-
pensities necessary for the formation of interpersonal
relationships that can forge group membership and soli-
darityis an element of the relational component of psy-
chological empowerment. This element can be thought of
as the ability to act as a part of a group exercising
collective agency in the sociopolitical domain. Examples
from previous research include Kieffers (1984) study of
collaborations in empowering social action processes, the
concepts of group membership and solidarity in Russell
et al.s (2009) work, and Ginwrights (2007) work on the
connections within community-based organizations that
facilitate the development of political consciousness.
Individuals with greater collaborative competence shouldnot be expected engage collaboratively in every context. In
some circumstances, they are likely to enter into conflict
with others while gaining greater control over their affairs
(Speer 2000, 2008). Likewise, they may selectively form
either strong or weak social ties (Granovetter 1973;
Krackhardt1992), depending on the context, and may even
maintain structural holes (Burt 2001) in their social net-
works. Yet, in certain contexts (i.e., empowering commu-
nity settings), they showcase their abilities through
developing and sustaining successful collaborations and
contributing to the development of group solidarity.
Bridging Social Divisions
Interpersonal activity across diverse settings that develops
trust and norms of reciprocity across lines of difference
form another element of the relational component of psy-
chological empowerment. This element can be thought of
as the propensities and set of competencies necessary for
building bridging social capital (Saegert et al. 2001).
Examples in previous research include Christens (2010)
study of community organizing addresses the role of
interpersonal relationships in developing new understand-
ings of the social world and strengthening commitments to
Fig. 1 Conceptual model for
psychological empowerment as
a latent construct with
emotional, cognitive, relational
and behavioral components, and
hypothesized elements of each
component
Am J Community Psychol
1 3
8/13/2019 Toward Relational Empowerment
9/15
civic engagement, Watkins et al.s (2007) study of the role
of intergroup relations across differences in social class,
race/ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation in develop-
ing critical understandings of marginalization and injustice,
and Cargo et al. (2003) study of youth empowerment,
which involved breaking down age segregation so that
young people could participate as citizens. Those who are
more adept at bridging social divisions can be expected tounderstand the roles that isolation and group divisions play
in maintaining power asymmetries. Accordingly, they can
be expected to possess strategies for bridging social divi-
sions, and to be embedded in relational networks contain-
ing others different from themselves.
Facilitating Others Empowerment
Another element of the relational component of psycho-
logical empowerment is the ability and propensity toward
facilitating empowering processes for others. As Gruber
and Trickett (1987) point out in their analysis of a policycouncil in an alternative high school, it is not always
possible for one person to empower another, particularly
when there are stark inequalities between them. However,
in many accounts of effective community leadership, we
see that community leaders often relinquish or delegate
control and decision-making, positioning others to take on
new challenges, and working to guide them in their
development as leaders (Evans2011). Many scholars have
emphasized this element of empowerment processes,
including Piggs (2002) work on mutual empowerment,
Kirshners (2008) account of guided learning in youth
activism, and Preskill and Brookfields (2009) concept of
organic leadership, which hinges on the task of learning to
support others growth through listening and thoughtful
questioning. Likewise, in Turroand Krauses (2009) study
of empowerment in a poor Chilean settlement, sociopolit-
ical development of residents is bound up in the obligations
and responsibilities that residents feel toward other group
members and residents, and the satisfaction derived from
helping them. Those who are more empowered in this
respect can be expected to demonstrate thoughtfulness and
intentionality about group processes, the identification of
the capacities of others, and strategies for providing others
with key opportunities, supports, and insights.
Mobilizing Networks
Interpersonal relationships have both expressive and
instrumental dimensions (Riger 1993). The role of inter-
personal relationships in network mobilization spans both
of these dimensions. With regard to the expressive
dimension, the role of relationships includes providing a
sense of personal invitation to participate (Ospina and
Foldy 2010) and strengthening commitments to making
change on issues that impact those with whom one is in
relationship (Christens 2010). Regarding the instrumental
dimension, studies of community organizing have often
highlighted the critical role that interpersonal relationships
play in motivating and sustaining community mobilization
(e.g., Christens and Dolan2011; Speer and Hughey1995).
Relationships also function as mechanisms for the trans-mission and enactment of cultural and religious influences
on collective action (Mattis and Jagers 2001). Those with
greater relational empowerment can be expected to be
adept at participating both expressively and instrumentally
in mobilization processes within the relational networks in
which they are participants.
Passing on Legacy
The models and strategies that create and sustain empow-
ering community settings (Maton 2008) are conveyed
relationally through mentorship and guided participation,training, and intergenerational collaborations (Kunreuther
et al. 2009). This element of relational empowerment
involves the commitments of more experienced leaders to
investment in the sustainability of their achievements
through growth-fostering relationships with those who will
succeed them. Russell et al. (2009) describe this element of
the empowerment processes of high school student leaders
in gay-straight alliances, who were taking relational action
to ensure that the organization would continue beyond their
own time in high school. Those involved in passing on a
legacy of empowerment can be expected to change not
only behaviorally and emotionally, but also relationally
and cognitively. For instance, in Ospina and Foldys (2010)
study of leadership in social change organizations, leaders
with more experience were seen partnering and collabo-
rating with newer participants, helping them to frame their
shared interests in ways that promoted cognitive shifts.
Importantly, this element of relational empowerment is not
only beneficial for the less experienced members, but can
also facilitate growth and development for those with more
experience, as well as forging greater group solidarity and
capacity (Zeldin2004).
Measurement and Future Directions
The focus of this article has been conceptual development
of an interpersonal, or relational, component of psycho-
logical empowerment. As Zimmerman (1990) makes clear,
empowerment embodies an interaction between individ-
uals and environments that is culturally and contextually
defined. As a result, interdisciplinary approaches, paradigm
shifts, and creative research strategies may be required to
Am J Community Psychol
1 3
8/13/2019 Toward Relational Empowerment
10/15
fully understand the construct (p. 170). Relationships play
a pivotal role in the interactions between the individuals
and environments involved in empowering processes. In
this article, I have advanced the position that understand-
ings of relational context should occupy a more prominent
space in studies of psychological empowerment. This view
is consonant with calls for moving psychology and social
science past individualism, toward a greater understandingof the dynamically unfolding social and relational pro-
cesses (Emirbayer 1997; Gergen 2009). In relational pro-
cesses, psychological empowerment may be expressed
through collaborative competence, though the formation of
relationships that bridge social or demographic divisions,
through the facilitation of the empowerment of others,
through network mobilization, and through a commitment
to passing on a legacy of empowerment. Attention to these
elements of relational context will bring the study of
psychological empowerment closer to understanding the
development and exercise of transformative power in
empowering community settings.Augmenting the nomological network for psychological
empowerment raises questions about measurement. Which
directions might lead to valid and reliable measures
for assessing the relational component of psychologi-
cal empowerment? Other components of psychological
empowerment have been measured as latent constructs (see
Bollen 2002) through the use of scales in self-report sur-
veys. For example, as described earlier, the intrapersonal
component has most frequently been measured using
variants of a sociopolitical control scale (Zimmerman and
Zahniser 1991). Development of a scale to measure the
relational component of psychological empowerment as a
latent construct is a promising avenue for future research.
Scales might, for instance, include item designed to assess
agreement/disagreement with statements that capture self-
perceptions of collaborative competence (e.g., I am good
at building meaningful relationships with other people),
facilitating others empowerment (e.g., I feel strongest
when I am investing in the people around me) and passing
on the legacy of empowerment (e.g., I have knowledge
and skills that I am passing on to others).
Once measures for relational empowerment are vali-
dated in specific contexts, future research could explore the
associations between relational empowerment and other
components of psychological empowerment, and with
empowerment at other levels of analysis. Community
participation might, for instance, be expected to precede
the development of networks of relationships that would, in
turn, lead to gains in sociopolitical control. In this way,
relational empowerment might be understood as a crucial
step along the path of socialization from behavioral to
intrapersonal empowerment (Christens et al. 2011a). Sim-
ilarly, a relational empowerment might lead to gains in
cognitive empowerment as people actively listen, reflect,
and facilitate others cognitive shifts. Time is an aspect of
context that is important for understanding empowering
processes and empowered outcomes. Longitudinal research
holds promise for understanding key dilemmas in
empowerment theory, including the lack of covariance of
some of the components of psychological empowerment
(Christens et al. 2011b). In-depth qualitative research onempowerment should continue, especially in contexts
where empowerment processes remain relatively unex-
plored. Studies by Kieffer (1984) and Russell et al. (2009)
offer excellent examples of qualitative research on empow-
ering processes.
The potential for empirical studies of relational
empowerment, however, go beyond traditional qualitative
and quantitative research. Relational structures as they
relate to the origins, exercise and maintenance of power
(Neal and Neal2011) represent another promising avenue
for future research. Social network analysis (Luke 2005)
permits inquiry into relational ties and structures them-selves. As discussed earlier, concepts from social network
theoryincluding centrality, reach, weak ties, closure, and
structural holesare potentially relevant to understanding
relational empowerment, but empirical studies are needed
to link these concepts with psychological empowerment.
Depending on the contexts being studied, social network
data might provide insights into relational empowerment.
For instance, Neal and Neal (2011) propose a method for
examining the relative power of actors in a resource
exchange network, and Noy (2008) presents an approach to
power mapping that might be adapted for studies of rela-
tional empowerment. In organizational or community set-
tings where it is feasible, it would be advantageous to
collect whole network data. In other cases, ego-net data
might make be the most logical or feasible method for
capturing relational context.
Further possibilities for research on relational empow-
erment include mixed-methods approaches incorporating
social network analysis alongside latent psychosocial con-
structs, individual characteristics and organizational affili-
ations. These hybrid approaches are perhaps the most
exciting directions for future research, as they could pro-
duce insights into intersubjectivity (Gillespie and Cornish
2010), relational structures, and the ways that different
settings constrain or enable empowerment processes. In
some settings, psychological empowerment may spread
through social networks dynamically, or in clusters, as
research has demonstrated that happiness, smoking, smok-
ing cessation, and obesity do (Christakis and Fowler2007,
2008; Fowler and Christakis 2009). Empowering organi-
zational settings, and the relational characteristics of those
settings (Luke et al.1991), may have differing impacts on
empowering processes over time (Christens and Speer
Am J Community Psychol
1 3
8/13/2019 Toward Relational Empowerment
11/15
2011). The study of relational empowerment promises to
advance our understanding of empowering community
settings by raising questions not only about setting influ-
ences on individuals, but about reciprocal transactions that
occur as people exercise agency in and through relation-
ships in different community and organizational settings.
The case that a relational component should be con-
sidered in future studies of psychological empowermentshould not be mistaken for a claim that relationships are
necessarily a preferred point of intervention or resistance.
Although promising models for relational interventions
exist (e.g., Surrey 1987), it is also the case that struc-
tural inequities play roles in maintaining interpersonal
oppression. As Grabe (2011) demonstrates in a study of
gender-based violence in a Nicaraguan context, oppressive
macro-social structures are intertwined with interpersonal
violence and control in relationships. When oppressive
structural conditions are altered, there are proximal effects
on gender-based ideology, agency and control in relation-
ships, and distal positive effects on wellbeing and pre-ventive effects on violence. Hence, in each effort to make
change, it is necessary to identify the points of leverage
(Christens et al. 2007) where actions have the greatest
potential to spur change processes. In some cases, like
grassroots community organizing, interpersonal relation-
ships do provide a promising point of interventions for
social change (Christens2010).
Empowerment is more than a conceptual frame and set
of measures; it is also a value orientation for practice
(Zimmerman 2000). As such, it is fundamentally con-
cerned with processes of liberation. As Watts et al. (2003)
explain, liberation involves challenging gross social
inequities between social groups and creating new rela-
tionships that dispel oppressive social myths, values, and
practices (p. 187). More systematic attention to the rela-
tional contexts of empowering processes and settings is
likely to further our fields understanding of the paradoxes
that characterize both disempowering and empowering
processes (Rappaport 1981) and accordingly enhance our
efforts to promote liberation. For example, Mankowski and
Maton (2010) point out that a psychology of men and
masculinity must deal with the paradox of mens power
and privilege and their simultaneous feelings of power-
lessness and victimhood. The oppressive myths, values and
practices that have accompanied the oppression of women
by men have, paradoxically, created a very limited and
unhealthy version of heteronormative masculinityone
that prizes individuality and eschews relationality. Pro-
cesses of liberation from gender-based oppression will
therefore necessarily involve changes in relationships and
new relationships that dispel the myths associated with
oppressive systems and replace them with new practices
and values.
This article has proposed an expansion of the construct of
psychological empowerment through the addition of a
relational component. Although interpersonal relationships
are frequently understood as components of extra-individual
contexts, the position taken here is that there are also rela-
tional components to psychosocial constructs and dynamics.
This assertion is somewhat unorthodox for work on latent
constructs in psychology, which are often theorizedaccording to a multi-component model of emotion/affect,
behavior and cognition. There is a broader argument to be
made for more relational, and less individualistic, notions of
mind and self in psychology (Gergen2009) and in Western
society (Bellah et al. 1985). The scope of this article,
though, has been a relational perspective on psychological
empowerment. As others have noted (e.g., Zimmerman
1995), empowerment is likely a context-specific construct,
such that no one model will apply to all empowering pro-
cesses. Theoretical work on empowerment will therefore
continually be necessary as a corollary to ongoing empirical
research, and the incorporation of a relational componentwill likely be more suitable for the study of psychological
empowerment in some contexts than in others.
The main aims of this article have been (1) to advance the
position that relational dynamics are crucial to a complete
understanding of psychological empowerment as a multi-
level construct, and (2) to work toward identification of
the elements of relational component of psychological
empowerment, based on a review of research on psycho-
logical empowerment and other conceptually relevant con-
structs. As the review of these constructs has made clear,
there is no current shortage of conceptual lenses for studying
sociability. However, empowerment is unique among these
for its explicitly political and value-laden approach to power
and collective action. Situating relational dynamics within
empowerment theory will therefore likely yield insights that
the use of other constructs, whose value orientations are
more ambiguous, could not. In sum, this proposed relational
turn in the study of psychological empowerment has been
offered in hopes that it will open new lines of inquiry with
theoretical, methodological and practical significance.
Acknowledgments This article benefitted from insightful com-
ments on earlier drafts that were provided by Andrew Peterson,
Amanda Harrington, Abra Bankendorf, Constance Flanagan, and theanonymous reviewers for this journal. Thanks also to Victor Maca-
ruso, whose perspective on empowerment in educational settings
helped spur the ideas presented here.
References
Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals: A pragmatic primer for
realistic radicals. New York: Vintage.
Altman, I., & Rogoff, B. (1987). World views in psychology: Trait,
interactional, organismic, and transactional perspectives. In
Am J Community Psychol
1 3
8/13/2019 Toward Relational Empowerment
12/15
D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental
psychology (pp. 740). New York: Wiley.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S.
M. (1985).Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in
American life (2008 reprint). Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Bollen, K. A. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social
sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 605634. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135239 .
Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009).
Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323, 892895.
doi:10.1126/science.1165821 .
Burt, R. S. (2001). Structural holes versus network closure as social
capital. In N. Lin, K. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital:
Theory and research (pp. 3156). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Cargo, M., Grams, G. D., Ottoson, J. M., Ward, P., & Green, L. W.
(2003). Empowerment as fostering positive youth development
and citizenship.American Journal of Health Behaviour, 27(Sup-
plement 1), 6679.
Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (2001). Gender, hierarchy, and
leadership: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4),
629636. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00232.
Carpendale, J. I. M., & Racine, T. P. (2011). Intersubjectivity and
egocentrism: Insights from the relational perspectives of Piaget,
Mead, and Wittgenstein. New Ideas in Psychology, 29, 346354.
doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.03.005 .
Chetkovich, C., & Kunreuther, F. (2006). From the ground up:
Grassroots organizations making social change. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity in a
large social network over 32 years. New England Journal of
Medicine, 357(4), 370379.
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2008). The collective dynamics of
smoking in a large social network. The New England Journal of
Medicine, 358(21), 22492258.
Christens, B. D. (2010). Public relationship building in grassroots
community organizing: Relational intervention for individual
and systems change. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(7),
886900. doi:10.1002/jcop.20403.
Christens, B. D., & Dolan, T. (2011). Interweaving youth develop-
ment, community development, and social change through youth
organizing. Youth & Society, 43(2), 528548. doi:10.1177/00441
18X10383647.
Christens, B. D., Hanlin, C. E., & Speer, P. W. (2007). Getting the
social organism thinking: Strategy for systems change.American
Journal of Community Psychology, 39(34), 229238. doi:
10.1007/s10464-007-9119-y.
Christens, B. D., Peterson, N. A., & Speer, P. W. (2011a). Community
participation and psychological empowerment: Testing recipro-
cal causality using a cross-lagged panel design and latent
constructs.Health Education & Behavior, 38(4), 589598. doi:
10.1177/1090198110372880.
Christens, B. D., & Speer, P. W. (2011). Contextual influences onparticipation in community organizing: A multilevel longitudinal
study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(34),
253263. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9393-y.
Christens, B. D., Speer, P. W., & Peterson, N. A. (2011b). Social
class as moderator of the relationship between (dis)empower-
ing processes and psychological empowerment. Journal of
Community Psychology, 39(2), 170182. doi:10.1002/jcop.204
25.
Coffe, H., & Geys, B. (2007). Toward an empirical characterization
of bridging and bonding social capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 121139. doi:10.1177/08997640062
93181.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital.
American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95S120.
Comstock, D. L.,Hammer,T. R.,Strentzsch,J., Cannon, K.,Parsons, J.,
& Salazar, G. (2008). Relational-cultural theory: A framework for
bridgingrelational, multicultural, and social justice competencies.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(June), 279287.
Crowe, J. (2010). Community attachment and satisfaction: The role of
a communityssocial network structure. Journal of Community
Psychology, 38(5), 622644. doi:10.1002/jcop.20387.
DeFilippis, J. (2001). The myth of social capital in community
development. Housing Policy Debate, 12(4), 781806. doi:
10.1080/10511482.2001.9521429.
Diani, M., & McAdam, D. (Eds.). (2003). Social movements and
networks: Relational approaches to collective action. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Dworski-Riggs, D., & Langhout, R. D. (2010). Elucidating the power
in empowerment and the participation in participatory action
research: A story about research team and elementary school
change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45,
215230. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9306-0.
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American
Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281317.
Evans, S. D. (2011). Community leadership (unpublished position
paper). Retrieved from: http://www.bus.miami.edu/_assets/files/
executive-education/leadership-institute/Evans%20position%20
paper%20_Community%20Leadership2.pdf.
Fanon, F. (1963).The wretched of the earth. New York: Grove Press.
Farr, J. (2004). Social capital: A conceptual history. Political Theory,
32(1), 633. doi:10.1177/0090591703254978.
Fedi, A., Mannarini, T., & Maton, K. I. (2009). Empowering
community settings and community mobilization. Community
Development, 40(3), 275291. doi:10.1080/15575330903109985.
Fogel, A. (1993). Developing through relationships: Origins of
communication, self, and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Foster-Fishman, P. G., Cantillon, D., Pierce, S. J., & Van Egeren, L.
A. (2007). Building an active citizenry: The role of neighbor-
hood problems, readiness, and capacity for change. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 39(1), 91106. doi:10.1007/
s10464-007-9097-0.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4),
777795.
Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2009). Dynamic spread of
happiness in a large social network: Longitudinal analysis over
20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. British Medical
Journal, 338, 2336. doi:10.1136/bmj.a2338.
Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social
construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Gillespie, A., & Cornish, F. (2010). Intersubjectivity: Towards a
dialogical analysis. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,
40(1), 1946. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.2009.00419.x .
Ginwright, S. (2007). Black youth activism and the role of criticalsocial capital in black community organizations. American
Behavioral Scientist, 51(3), 403418. doi:10.1177/0002764
207306068.
Grabe, S. (2011). An empirical examination of womens empower-
ment and transformative change in the context of international
development. American Journal of Community Psychology. doi:
10.1007/s10464-011-9453-y.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American
Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 13601380.
Groves, L. C., & Hinton, R. B. (2004). Inclusive aid: Changing power
and relationships in international development. London:
Earthscan.
Am J Community Psychol
1 3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135239http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1165821http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00232http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.03.005http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20403http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10383647http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10383647http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9119-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198110372880http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9393-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20425http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20425http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764006293181http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764006293181http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20387http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2001.9521429http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9306-0http://www.bus.miami.edu/_assets/files/executive-education/leadership-institute/Evans%20position%20paper%20_Community%20Leadership2.pdfhttp://www.bus.miami.edu/_assets/files/executive-education/leadership-institute/Evans%20position%20paper%20_Community%20Leadership2.pdfhttp://www.bus.miami.edu/_assets/files/executive-education/leadership-institute/Evans%20position%20paper%20_Community%20Leadership2.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591703254978http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330903109985http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9097-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9097-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a2338http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2009.00419.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764207306068http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764207306068http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9453-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9453-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764207306068http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764207306068http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2009.00419.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a2338http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9097-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9097-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330903109985http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591703254978http://www.bus.miami.edu/_assets/files/executive-education/leadership-institute/Evans%20position%20paper%20_Community%20Leadership2.pdfhttp://www.bus.miami.edu/_assets/files/executive-education/leadership-institute/Evans%20position%20paper%20_Community%20Leadership2.pdfhttp://www.bus.miami.edu/_assets/files/executive-education/leadership-institute/Evans%20position%20paper%20_Community%20Leadership2.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9306-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2001.9521429http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20387http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764006293181http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764006293181http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20425http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20425http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9393-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198110372880http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9119-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10383647http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10383647http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20403http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.03.005http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00232http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1165821http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.1352398/13/2019 Toward Relational Empowerment
13/15
Gruber, J., & Trickett, E. J. (1987). Can we empower others? The
paradox of empowerment in an alternative public high school.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 353372. doi:
10.1007/BF00922703.
Gutierrez, L. M. (1995). Understanding the empowerment process:
Does consciousness make a difference? Social Work Research,
19(4), 229237.
Hughey, J., Peterson, N. A., Lowe, J. B., & Oprescu, F. (2008).
Empowerment and sense of community: Clarifying their
relationship in community organizations. Health Education &
Behavior, 35(5), 651663. doi:10.1177/1090198106294896.
Hughey, J., & Speer, P. W. (2002). Community, sense of community,
and networks. In A. T. Fisher, C. Sonn, & B. Bishop (Eds.),
Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and
implications (pp. 6984). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
Hughey, J., Speer, P. W., & Peterson, N. A. (1999). Sense of
community in community organizations: Structure and evidence
of validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(1), 97113.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1\97::AID-JCOP7[3.0.CO;
2-K.
Israel, B. A., Checkoway, B., Schulz, A., & Zimmerman, M. (1994).
Health education and community empowerment: Conceptualiz-
ing and measuring perceptions of individual, organizational, and
community control. Health Education Quarterly, 21(2),
149170. doi:10.1177/109019819402100203.
Itzhaky, H., & York, A. S. (2000). Empowerment and community
participation: Does gender make a difference? Social Work
Research, 24(4), 225234.
Kadushin, C. (2004). Too much investment in social capital? Social
Networks, 26, 7590. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2004.01.009 .
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kieffer, C. H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental
perspective. In J. Rappaport, C. Swift, & R. Hess (Eds.), Studies
in empowerment: Steps toward understanding and action (pp.
936). New York: The Haworth Press.
Kim, S., Crutchfield, C., Williams, C., & Hepler, N. (1998). Toward a
new paradigm in substance abuse and other problem behavior
prevention for youth: Youth development and empowerment
approach. Journal of Drug Education, 28(1), 117. doi:
10.2190/5ET9-X1C2-Q17B-2G6D .
Kirshner, B. (2008). Guided participation in three youth activism
organizations: Facilitation, apprenticeship, and joint work.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 60101. doi:10.1080/10508
400701793190.
Kitzinger, C. (1991). Feminism, psychology and the paradox of
power. Feminism & Psychology, 1(1), 111129. doi:10.1177/
0959353591011016.
Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of
philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.),
Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp.
216239). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kunreuther, F., Kim, H., & Rodriguez, R. (2009).Working across
generations: Defining the future of nonprofit leadership. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Laverack, G. (2006). Using a domains approach to build community
empowerment. Community Development Journal, 41(1), 412.
doi:10.1093/cdj/bsi038 .
Lucal, B. (1996). Oppression and privilege: Toward a relational
conceptualization of race. Teaching Sociology, 24(3), 245255.
Luke, D. A. (2005). Getting the big picture in community science:
Methods that capture context. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 35(3/4), 185200. doi:10.1007/s10464-005-3397-z.
Luke, D. A., Rappaport, J., & Seidman, E. (1991). Setting phenotypes
in a mutual help organization: Expanding behavior setting
theory. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19(1),
147167. doi:10.1007/BF00942263.
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.
Mankowski, E. S., & Maton, K. I. (2010). A community psychology
of men and masculinity: Historical and conceptual review.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(1), 7386. doi:
10.1007/s10464-009-9288-y.
Maton, K. I. (2008). Empowering community settings: Agents of
individual development, community betterment, and positive
social change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41,
421. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9148-6.
Maton, K. I., & Rappaport, J. (1984). Empowerment in a religious
setting: A multivariate investigation. In J. Rappaport, C. Swift, &
R. Hess (Eds.), Studies in empowerment: Steps toward under-
standing and action(pp. 3772). New York: The Haworth Press.
Maton, K. I., & Salem, D. A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of
empowering community settings: A multiple case study
approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5),
631656. doi:10.1007/BF02506985.
Mattis, J. S., & Jagers, R. J. (2001). A relational framework for the
study of religiosity and spirituality in the lives of African
Americans. Journal of Community Psychology, 29(5), 519539.
doi:10.1002/jcop.1034.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A
definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1),
623. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1\6:AID-JCOP22901
40103[3.0.CO;2-I.
Miller, J. B. (1984).The development of womens sense of self (Work
in Progress). Wellesley, MA: Stone Center, Wellesley College.
Miller, P. M. (2011). Homeless families education networks: An
examination of access and mobilization.Educational Administra-
tion Quarterly. Published online ahead of print as doi:10.1177/
0013161X11401615.
Neal, J. W. (2009). Network ties and mean lies: A relational approach
to relational aggression. Journal of Community Psychology,
37(6), 737753. doi:10.1002/jcop.20328 .
Neal, J. W., & Neal, Z. P. (2011). Power as a structural phenomenon.
American Journalof Community Psychology, 48(3-4), 157167.
doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9356-3.
Noy, D. (2008). Power mapping: Enhancing sociological knowledge
by developing generalizable analytical public tools. The Amer-
ican Sociologist, 39(1), 318. doi:10.1007/s12108-008-9030-5.
Ospina, S., & Foldy, E. (2010). Building bridges from the margins:
The work of leadership in social change organizations. The
Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 292307. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.
2010.01.008.
Perkins, D. D. (2010). Empowerment. In R. Couto (Ed.), Political and
civic leadership (pp. 207218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D.
(1990). Participation and the social and physical environment of
residential blocks: Crime and community context. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 83115. doi:10.1007/
BF00922690.
Perkins, D. D., Hughey, J., & Speer, P. W. (2002). Communitypsychology perspectives on social capital theory and community
development practice. Journal of the Community Development
Society, 33(1), 122. doi:10.1080/15575330209490141.
Perkins, D. D., & Long, D. A. (2002). Neighborhood sense of
community and social capital: A multi-level analysis. In C. Sonn
& B. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community:
Research, applications, and implications (pp. 291318). New
York: Plenum.
Peterson, N. A., Hamme, C. L., & Speer, P. W. (2002). Cognitive
empowerment of African Americans and Caucasians: Differ-
ences in understandings of power, political functioning, and
Am J Community Psychol
1 3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00922703http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198106294896http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1%3c97::AID-JCOP7%3e3.0.CO;2-Khttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1%3c97::AID-JCOP7%3e3.0.CO;2-Khttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1%3c97::AID-JCOP7%3e3.0.CO;2-Khttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1%3c97::AID-JCOP7%3e3.0.CO;2-Khttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1%3c97::AID-JCOP7%3e3.0.CO;2-Khttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1%3c97::AID-JCOP7%3e3.0.CO;2-Khttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109019819402100203http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.01.009http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/5ET9-X1C2-Q17B-2G6Dhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400701793190http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400701793190http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353591011016http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353591011016http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi038http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-005-3397-zhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00942263http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9288-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9148-6http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02506985http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.1034http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1%3c6:AID-JCOP2290140103%3e3.0.CO;2-Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1%3c6:AID-JCOP2290140103%3e3.0.CO;2-Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1%3c6:AID-JCOP2290140103%3e3.0.CO;2-Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1%3c6:AID-JCOP2290140103%3e3.0.CO;2-Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1%3c6:AID-JCOP2290140103%3e3.0.CO;2-Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1%3c6:AID-JCOP2290140103%3e3.0.CO;2-Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11401615http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11401615http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20328http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9356-3http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12108-008-9030-5http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.008http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.008http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00922690http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00922690http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330209490141http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330209490141http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00922690http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00922690http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.008http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.008http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12108-008-9030-5http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9356-3http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20328http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11401615http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11401615http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1%3c6:AID-JCOP2290140103%3e3.0.CO;2-Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1%3c6:AID-JCOP2290140103%3e3.0.CO;2-Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.1034http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02506985http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9148-6http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9288-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00942263http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-005-3397-zhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi038http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353591011016http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353591011016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400701793190http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400701793190http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/5ET9-X1C2-Q17B-2G6Dhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.01.009http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109019819402100203http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1%3c97::AID-JCOP7%3e3.0.CO;2-Khttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1%3c97::AID-JCOP7%3e3.0.CO;2-Khttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198106294896http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF009227038/13/2019 Toward Relational Empowerment
14/15
shaping ideology.Journal of Black Studies, 32(3), 336351. doi:
10.1177/002193470203200304.
Peterson, N. A., Lowe, J. B., Hughey, J., Reid, R. J., Zimmerman, M.
A., & Speer, P. W. (2006). Measuring the intrapersonal
component of psychological empowerment: Confirmatory factor
analysis of the sociopolitical control scale. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 38(34), 287297. doi:10.1007/s10464-
006-9070-3.
Peterson, N. A., Peterson, C. H., Agre, L., Christens, B. D., & Morton,
C. M. (2011). Measuring youth empowerment: Validation of a
sociopolitical control scale for youth in an urban community
context.Journal of Community Psychology, 39(5), 592605. doi:
10.1002/jcop.20456.
Peterson, N. A., & Reid, R. J. (2003). Paths to psychological
empowerment in an urban community: Sense of community and
citizen participation in substance abuse prevention activities.
Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1), 2538. doi:10.1002/
jcop.10034.
Peterson, N. A., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2004). Beyond the individual:
Toward a nomological network of organizational empowerment.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 34(1/2), 129145.
doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000040151.77047.58 .
Pigg, K. E. (2002). Three faces of empowerment: Expanding the
theory of empowerment in community development. Journal of
the Community Development Society, 33(1), 107123. doi:
10.1080/15575330209490145.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in
modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 124. doi:
10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1 .
Preskill, S., & Brookfield, S. D. (2009). Learning as a way of leadin